http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2228 (changes are underlined).

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/109 (read the interim Breed Standard under review until June 2009).

It looks as though they are "trimming up" other breeds as well.

That and Crufts makes you think they are concerned about things we do that are not to the benefit of the dogs. It is probably a good idea. It would be impossible to pull off in the states as most dogs are shown with excessive weight and it would be difficult to change the people who feed them.

Yes, there are amendments in several Groups: Pastoral, Working, Utility, Terrier, Gundog and Hound.

If fit agile labs started winning in the breed ring, you would see less fat "slabs" in the AKC ring.

barb

Not sure what you are referencing. My boys have won quite a bit at AKC shows and the are both agile and far from fat. I see a number of fit dogs in the ring. I think I missed your point. Look at Salty Dog, he wins all the time and is a very fit dog.

I agree with you Kim. I also think that dogs that carry good coat, are tightly coupled and have good rib spring and depth tend to look heavier...some of this is an illusion and when you get your hands on the dog you find they are quite fit and well muscled. Some of this appearance can be exasperated by breeding for incorrect amounts of coat and bone. I think very few dogs are truly shown overweight.

Frankly many of the UK dogs seem much more athletic looking in my opinion than alot of the popular specialty dogs today. Often it seems when we invite a UK judge over they put up more moderate dogs that have good structure, movement, proper head planes and correct wrapping. I can't see them trending further toward lighter bone/build though as this would take away the true function and purpose of the breed. If anything, I see these breeders continuing to preserve the more moderate (and correctly built in my opinion) Labrador. It seems they have worked very hard at preserving the true type and function of this breed.

JMO

I totally agree with that statement well built dogs sometimes without putting your hands on them give the illussion of being overweight.....my vet often says my girl is heavy till he puts his hands on her....and then laughs and says oopps I am wrong there she is just fine. well built girl

I agree about coat to a certain extent - my dogs look more substantial when in full coat but they never appear fat. If a dog has so much coat that they appear fat, in a lot of cases is is because the coat is long and wavy or fluffy and open. I have never seen a nice short dense coat make a dog look fat, and short, dense and hard is a correct coat.

We all know people with excessively overweight labs who will swear that the dogs are not fat. If you look at that everyday, it is what your eye gets used to.

Interesting you note that European labs look more athletic. Interesting because, if you check their pedigrees, you are going to find American dogs behind them.

I will disagree with you on this, I have dogs here that have lots of coat, none have long hair and some do have a slight wave on the top of their back but that is a correct coat with the slight wave because of the undercoat being correct.

I have people tell me that my one bitch is fat and then they see her again out of coat and say oh, she lost weight when in fact she is the exact same weight. She is never fat just in good coat!
Aloha,
jackie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I agree about coat to a certain extent - my dogs look more substantial when in full coat but they never appear fat. If a dog has so much coat that they appear fat, in a lot of cases is is because the coat is long and wavy or fluffy and open. I have never seen a nice short dense coat make a dog look fat, and short, dense and hard is a correct coat.

I will disagree with you on this, I have dogs here that have lots of coat, none have long hair and some do have a slight wave on the top of their back but that is a correct coat with the slight wave because of the undercoat being correct. Not one of my dogs have fluffy coats or open coats either.

I have people tell me that my one bitch is fat and then they see her again out of coat and say oh, she lost weight when in fact she is the exact same weight. She is never fat just in good coat!
Aloha,
jackie

American dogs behind the English dogs? Not many....

It is time for the same breed standard to apply world wide. That is the only way forward. We must put an end to Labs that look like over-stuffed sofas rolling around the show ring on castors. The breed is supposed to look like a sporting dog not a hairy keg on legs.

"American dogs behind the English dogs? Not many....

Really? I think it is time for you to go online and take another look. Some may come by way of Scandinavia, but they are there. Others, like Hawksmoor's Webster, are pervasive in English pedigrees.

Yes, Webster is in many pedigrees and produced wonderfully...but I wonder...would you humor me and look back at his 4 generation pedigree? I think you will find European dogs back there.

Besides this one, wonderful boy...tell me how many more are in UK pedigrees that do not go back to UK dogs? That is what I thought. Yet...you do not see long coated, over done dogs being exhibited as the norm over there...can we say the same? This is one breed...and yet there is such a wide disparity even in the "show" dogs. No wonder judges can't educate themselves on what is correct.

Breeder judges and all-breed judges have a hard time choosing the same dog 2 days in a row. In fact at most shows, the dog that wins one day may come in 4th in his or her class the next day!!! It is not that the dogs are any better or worse, it is that there are so many different interpretations of what a Labrador should look like. I have been part of judge's discussions on the breed and at times they come up with things that are not mentioned in the standard, and these were breeder judges!!!!!There is just too much personal input into what a Labrador should be and there will never, ever be any consensus whatsoever!

I really like it as a whole. It seems really simple and instead of disqualifications, it just has that statement about the degree of a fault is......

I love the following "Introduction":

"A Breed Standard is the guideline which describes the ideal characteristics, temperament and appearance of a breed and ensures that the breed is fit for function. Absolute soundness is essential.

Breeders and judges should at all times be careful to avoid obvious conditions or exaggerations which would be detrimental in any way to the health, welfare or soundness of this breed. From time to time certain conditions or exaggerations may be considered to have the potential to affect dogs in some breeds adversely, and judges and breeders are requested to refer to the Kennel Club website for details of any such current issues. If a feature or quality is desirable it should only be present in the right measure."

In the end the dog that wins on the given day under the given judge is because that particular dog apeals to that particular judge. Every kennel is different from the next after one generation of breeding.

I like the change. When looking at the direction of the breed over the years, I think this is a wise move. I dislike the whole "more is better" movement - more angulation, more bone, more head, more dog in general.

Personally, I'd like to hit the rewind button and go back to what a Labrador used to be.

I just wish the people who ignore the AKC standard on the grounds that it is so bad, at least were true to this one.

If you ignore both, what does that mean?